Remembering Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden in a 2019 interview on MSNBC


Hero or Zero

 

Here is how things have faired for Whistleblowers who tried to do things through proper channels.. See Obama and scum bucket Mueller's handiwork

 

He's a hero who deserves to go to prison.

 

Why would he doubt that he'd get a fair trial?

Do you think he deserves one?

 

I guess he believes that some of the exculpatory evidence might be considered classified. My guess...

Sure. But it's "tricky" in this case to define what "fair" means. And there is not enough information out there to have an opinion on this.

 

If that's not an opinion, what do you call it?


So, more specifically, you can' t offer an opinion on whether or not he would get a fair trial; yet you are of the opinion that he belongs in prison. I guess that was my point-- who needs a trial, right?

 

Lets give the guilty SOB a fair trial before we hang him.

 

No no no - best the Public just forget about the likes of Snowden and Assange.

We are a "Rule of Law" society - Remember that.

 

Read again... Pay more attention.

 

Sorry, your comment that there's not enough evidence to determine what a, "fair," trial is, in his case, is too enigmatic. Maybe to you, saying, "it's tricky, in this case, to define what, 'fair,' means," is somehow vastly different than any of the other ways I put it (including at top), but that's your private language.

It's "tricky," defining, "fair." Period. But we all not only do, for ourselves, but we use an agreed- upon, group standard for every trial in this country. "Fair," whatever else that means, means consistent.

 

I read his book and some info describing what he done. If he is not lying he is a true American here and does not deserve to go to jail.
He exposed that NSA ILLEGALLY collects information about US citizens. He revealed this information to journalists, not to a foreign governments.
And little more information about this affair:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress and was not charged:
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/james-clapper-not-charged-with-lying-to-congress/

Obama was so pissed off that the information about illegal spying on American citizens was released, that Joe Biden personally called different countries warning them not to grant Snowden asylum:
https://www.axios.com/snowden-biden...lum-50e560aa-14b0-41ad-9e6d-fe7a14ca3231.html

They even forced airplane of president Evo Morales of Bolivia to land because Obama suspected Snowden is on the board:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

 

Not sure how it could be "enigmatic" when I'm directly responding to your questions. Wouldn't that mean your questions were enigmatic?

No. It's obviously much trickier in this case. For example (just an example), is the trial fair to Snowden or fair to the people whose life might be compromised when some of the information that might exculpate him is made public? Again: there is not enough information available, that has been made public, which would help anybody make an informed opinion on that. And I always try to avoid holding uninformed opinions.

But it is my opinion that he broke the law by not going through the proper channels available to whistleblowers. Which would be understandable during the Trump administration. But not back then. I am not sure if there was a bit of "showmanship" in that or not. However, the information that he made public SHOULD have been made public. So he's also a hero. Maybe a martyr, if you want.

 

While you are making responses, you are not really responding. This was your, "answer:"

Thanks for all the information; I appreciate your openness, and the, "directness," of your response, specifically to my question.

So you are fine with someone going to prison for a crime, when extant evidence proves the person's innocence, if that evidence, for any reason, isn't permitted in court?
I'm sorry, but I do not draw such sinuous lines as you; innocent people should not be imprisoned, to my mind, period.


If you don't have sufficient evidence to determine if a trial is fair, but you believe that a person is entitled to a fair trial, then you can not be sure he will get that. Therefore, logically, one could not be in favor of that person being convicted by this potentially unfair trial, unless one is willing to dispense, in some cases, (at least potentially) with fair trials.

Unsurprisingly, you do not wish to admit this about yourself, no matter how logically undeniable it is.


BTW, have you read all the documents & information that Snowden made available?

I imagine the falsely imprisoned find little solace in having those who would take away their freedom, refer to them as martyrs.

Since you admit that the info should have been made public, but that the Obama administration was concealing it, that is a textbook definition of a whistleblower, entitled to protection. Mr. Snowden seems a highly intelligent individual, to me. I'm sure the only reason he didn't follow the, "proper channels," was that he realized that they were compromised, and not acting independently, as they should. Given that, what is your reason for saying that not following the proper protocols is forgivable, if it happened under Trump, but not under Obama. I can see that, only, as indicative of more than a bit of, "partisanship," in that.

 

You are joking, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/...ld-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html
"If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama
By James Risen
Dec. 30, 2016
[...]
Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.

Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.
[...]
In a scathing 2013 report for the Committee to Protect Journalists, Leonard Downie, a former executive editor of The Washington Post who now teaches at Arizona State University, said the war on leaks and other efforts to control information was “the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate.”
[...]
“Obama has laid all the groundwork Trump needs for an unprecedented crackdown on the press,” said Trevor Timm, executive director of the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Dana Priest, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The Washington Post, added: “Obama’s attorney general repeatedly allowed the F.B.I. to use intrusive measures against reporters more often than any time in recent memory. The moral obstacles have been cleared for Trump’s attorney general to go even further, to forget that it’s a free press that has distinguished us from other countries, and to try to silence dissent by silencing an institution whose job is to give voice to dissent.”
[...]
The Obama administration quickly ratcheted up the pressure, and made combating leaks a top priority for federal law enforcement. Large-scale leaks, by Chelsea Manning and later by Edward J. Snowden, prompted the administration to adopt a zealous, prosecutorial approach toward all leaking. Lucy Dalglish, the dean of the University of Maryland’s journalism school, recalls that, during a private 2011 meeting intended to air differences between media representatives and administration officials, “You got the impression from the tone of the government officials that they wanted to take a zero-tolerance approach to leaks.”
[...]
More significantly, the Obama administration won a ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in my case that determined that there was no such thing as a “reporter’s privilege” - the right of journalists not to testify about their confidential sources in criminal cases. The Fourth Circuit covers Virginia and Maryland, home to the C.I.A., the Pentagon and the National Security Agency, and thus has jurisdiction over most leak cases involving classified information. That court ruling could result, for example, in a reporter’s being quickly jailed for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the Trump administration’s Justice Department to reveal the C.I.A. sources used for articles on the agency’s investigation into Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election.
Press freedom advocates already fear that under Senator Jeff Sessions, Mr. Trump’s choice to be attorney general, the Justice Department will pursue journalists and their sources at least as aggressively as Mr. Obama did. If Mr. Sessions does that, Ms. Dalglish said, “Obama handed him a road map.”

 

To be honest, I haven't read his book. But what you describe here is illegal. So he needs to do prison time. However, it's a heroic act. And we owe him a debt of gratitude.

Complex situation.... Maybe one of those cases for which presidential pardons were really created.

 

There you go again. Not reading what I write and, instead, making unsubstantiated assumptions.

There is no way to know if the evidence proves the person's innocence or not until a jury renders a verdict. If it turns out that it doesn't, then it's too late. The information is out.

This is much more complex than these simplistic generalizations and assumptions that you are trying to make. The proper response is: there is not enough publicly available information to have an opinion on what a "fair trial" is.

I repeat what I think. I think that Snowden broke the law. But I think that the information he made public SHOULD have been made public. However, people who break the law must go to prison. I believe also that, as far as we know, he had a legal alternative that he didn't even attempt to use. And that fact works against him.

I am not carrying out a trial. I am giving my opinion of what the outcome should be, given the information that we have. Which is what the OP asks. How we get to that outcome... I have no idea. So all this speculation of yours about fair or unfair trials is total baseless speculation on your part.

The dictionary definition definition, maybe. But that's irrelevant. What we're discussing is the legal definition. And legally, a whistleblower must follow a chain of events which Snowden did not follow.

 

No! Read my sig!

If you don't know the difference between leakers and whistleblowers.... find out! The only one who has actively gone out to get whistleblowers is Trump

 

No, Ronny Reagan, I'm not making ANY assumptions. And I'm not changing your words. Well the emboldened words, at the bottom of your quote, are just specious double-talk, to avoid answering the question, by bringing other people into the argument.

The words, "a fair trial," are commonly, and easily, understood by all-- except for you, if your continual attempts at evasion are taken to be a sincere inability to comprehend that it is a narrow reference to the person on trial. From that, don't now twist my words to make it out that I don't think that fairness to others is a concern. I'm saying that it is a separate question from, "is it a fair trial," for the accused.

MY VIEW, is that if, FOR WHATEVER REASON, a fair trial, for the accused, can't be guaranteed, then the person SHOULD NOT BE TRIED.

I'm sure no one else, reading those words, has any difficulty interpreting their meaning. YOUR statements, on the record, as it were, that you feel he SHOULD BE CONVICTED, require no manipulation, or assuming, on my part, to be taken as an indication that you feel the failure to be able to guarantee the accused a fair trial (as the term applies to that person), should NOT stop a trial from proceeding. The ONLY, logical ramification of that position, is that you do not believe a fair trial must be GUARANTEED.

If I have somehow misconstrued your meaning, it does not take paragraphs of clarification, equivocation, or accusations against my method, to straighten out the misunderstanding. Simply say, "If a trial cannot be assured of being fair to the accused, then it should not proceed," if you agree with that position. But, thus far, as to the question of whether or not you do,
all signs-- to paraphrase the Magic 8-Ball-- point to, "No."

 

Why don't you try watching the video in the OP - rather than guessing - as Snowden explains exactly why the US will not grant him a fair trial.

"Not information on this" - completely wrong - watch the video. He will be denied the right to defend himself on the basis of the greater good - crimes of the State - and so on. The Jury told to disregard such arguments ... not allowed to consider them.

This - by definition - is then not a fair trial.

 

What nonsense is this?

You asked: Do you think he deserves one [a fair trial]?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/remembering-edward-snowden.583840/#post-1072377915
I answered: Sure...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/remembering-edward-snowden.583840/#post-1072377939

A retraction is in order...

 

I asked you is you are joking, because you suggested that whistleblowing during Trump administration was more difficult than during Obama. Article I showed you (from Dec. 30, 2016) showed it is not so sure.

Yours “The only one who has actively gone out to get whistleblowers is Trump” shows you sig is misleading. How about changing your sig to:
“It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments, but this doesn't mean I'm always right. Sometime I forget to my due diligence”.

To help you understand the difference between leakers and whistleblowers and to do you diligence I advise you to listen to:

 

You insist on confusing leakers and whistleblowers. The difference is simple: whistleblowers follow the Whistelblower Protection Act (and other legislation intended to protect them) Leakers do not.

If you have an argument to make, make it. I don't debate with Articles. I debate with you. And, as forum rules state, references, links,... etc, are meant to support an argument, not to make the argument for you.

Not making an argument indicates that you didn't have an argument in the first place.

 

In my opinion Edward Snowden was (and is) neither a patriot nor a traitor. It depends on your point of view.
For some he is a patriot, exposing government surveillance, others believe he is a traitor for leaking classified material.

But what about Snowden himself? Who is this man, really? Why did he do what he did?
What did he seek to gain from hitting the limelight?
What’s in his head?

No doubt the CIA has a psychological profile on this man that covers a thousand pages. And then some.
But I can sum it up in a few lines because we've seen this kind of story before, especially in the Intelligence Community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_John_Boyce

It might be the age old story of the loner. Someone, typically, estranged from his parents and unable to make friends.
Someone unable to find his place in society as soon as he was old enough to realize it.
Someone who is loyal to no-one, EXACTLY for the reason of not fitting in anywhere.
Also someone with an IQ of 145. Or so I heard.
(Which makes some people more stupid than smart because their outrages intelligence prohibits them from doing anything else. Edward Snowden couldn't be a bagboy in a supermarket, even if he studied for it. He's too smart to be normal.)

And then this type of person, God help us all, was recruited by the CIA.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time, would it?

We all know what happened next; the CIA drilled Edward Snowden to be a mindless robot, having him listen in on the secret conversations of the world. Or something like that.
And then he stole a crap-load of secret documents, ''selling'' them to the highest bidder. In this case some naive Guardian journalists.
All in the name of being the Robin Hood of the Intelligence Community.

Or so Edward Snowden claimed.

But I think this drama was about nothing more than Edward Snowden himself.
He did it for nothing else but his own gratification, being disgruntled with the way he feels America is being run. (He made this perfectly clear in his Hong Kong interview.)

Edward Snowden might be suffering from, what I would call, 'Disgruntled Postal Worker Syndrome'.

What he did, in essence, was to leave the Intelligence Community and then return to shoot up the place, simply because he feels aggrieved with how America is being governed.
And then he proceeded to tell us we should feel the same way.

But that is his opinion, not the opinion of the world. Some of use just want to eat our microwave dinners and be left alone.


In the end Edward Snowden is nothing but a criminal who stole secrets from the US government and then fled to the safe haven of Russia.
God know what he's doing there now, hacking wise.

Remember; loyal to no-one. Which makes someone like Edward Snowden an extremely dangerous individual and possible enemy of the United States and the free world.



The danger is not just what governments are up to in secret.

The danger is how people can abuse the power of secrets to threaten the free world.

These people are called spies...

 

Good post - as you make good attempt to explain what you are thinking . but - you seem a bit all over the map.

1) Snowden is an interesting fellow - you should listen to his 2019 interview with CNN - and listen to the whole hour.

But - at the end of the day - "Why he did it" does not change the fact that our Gov't was knowingly engaging in criminal activities. Activities in violation of the sacred trust of Every US Citizen.

This is true regardless of what one thinks of Snowden - or his Motives.

Snowden has offered to come back for Trial - the one request that it be a fair trial .. and this our Kangaroo Justice system will not grant.

I see Biden is continuing to violate the rule of Law by trying to keep extraditing Assange - - How long has that dude been imprisoned for - a Political Prisoner ? ..

2) Yes .. CIA are Goblins .. as is the Pentagon and so on.. which is why are acting they way they are over getting caught.

Do what you will with Snowden - but what have they done to the people who committed the crimes that were exposed by Snowden .. actions ruled a crime by US courts ?


3) This - is abject nonsense

What he did - was risk his life, safety and security to out some very serious Gov't Crimes. Others who tried to out these crimes - "Through Legitimate Channels" were hunted down and persecuted ..life and livelihood threatened - the full weight of the State brought to bear against them .. branded as "Threats to National Security" and so on.

Then you say something quite lucid

The danger is definitely that when we give Gov't too much power - it will be abused. It is not the Free world that I worry about - as there are no secrets that can threaten the world that are already out of Pandora's box.

What I worry about .. is how Gov't will abuse this power against the citizens of the USA.. Russia is the least of my worries .. foreign spies and so on - with respect to this issue.

If we are talking military technology secret's that is something different .. but we are not. We are talking spycraft secrets - but ones that all the folks spying are familiar with .. it is just Joe Citizen that was unaware.

Did you think the Russians did now know that you could be spied on through your Iphone .. did you think the Iphone manufacturer "China" did not know this ?

No - it was the US citizen that did not know this... we were the only one's in the dark ..

 

Semantic dribble - with the intent simply to derail from arguing the issue - is one of your common tactics .

The fact of the matter is that you have no coherent argument in support of your claim that Snowden should be imprisoned .. and you certainly have not made a case for the punishment that should be given -w/r to the crime..

but I await such an argument ..